In Sweden incl taxes 3016 USDAs a pro 2400USD with VAT deductionTheres in no problem to buy the lens from US but Canon Europe does not like to take care of the lens from US if something is wrong. And there are a 25% VAT of gods from US if the lens are declared into Sweden in a proper way

So don't declare.

I actually have a friend from Sweden who travels to NYC twice a year. During every visit, he goes to B&H and packs his bag full of gear. He never declares it when he gets back home. Just walks through the customs with a smile on his face.

I am more interested in a long discussion and comparison of the Tamron 24-70 vs the Canon 24-70 since the Tamron has received so much positive attention. Is the Canon really worth all the extra $$ over the Tamron? That's the question in my mind...

In Sweden incl taxes 3016 USDAs a pro 2400USD with VAT deductionTheres in no problem to buy the lens from US but Canon Europe does not like to take care of the lens from US if something is wrong. And there are a 25% VAT of gods from US if the lens are declared into Sweden in a proper way

So don't declare.

I actually have a friend from Sweden who travels to NYC twice a year. During every visit, he goes to B&H and packs his bag full of gear. He never declares it when he gets back home. Just walks through the customs with a smile on his face.

I've done that a few times, not myself, but buddies of mine travelling. The problem is, IF you get pulled over at customes it's YOUR responsibillity to prove to them that it has been either declared (if bought from elsewhere) or that you bought it in your country, Norway in this case. That means if I travel with a Norwegian-bought lens, used or new, and I get pulled over on my way back and can't provide a receipt from Norway for the item in question, I have to pay the taxes of NEW retail price. This is even if I buy the item used and it's 10 years old and it's still in sale. So I might save quite a bit with sneaking it in, but if I'm unlucky, it would cost through the teeth to keep it.

The other thing is you can't sneak anything in unless someone you know is actually going to BH, buy online and taxes are autmatically added, and yes, they add taxes to the SHIPPING costs as well.. Greedy bastards...

I shoot my 24 veryvery much between 1.4 and 1.8 and I've tried a 24mm f2.8 for the same type of shots, and it lacks that nice soft 3D-feel the f1.4 gives. However I could use both, because out shooting with flash or something I could change the perspective in 0.1 seconds by zooming and have much more options for my images.

It took my a while back in the day to realize that 24-70 isn't about getting closer, it's about changing the perspective. By then it was already sold.

It is a very good lens no doubt. That said DxO can't be trusted when it comes to lenses (unless you also accept that the 70-200 2.8 IS is the best at f/2.8 200mm and the 2.8 IS II the worst of all the Canon 70-200s and that the 70-300L is worse at 300mm than the non-L which I think they might have even had better than the 300L prime and I think it was that the 16-35 II has the sharper corners wide open than stopped down, etc. etc.).

As good as this one is, I don't think it can quite match the 70-200 2.8 II if you are talking about to the corners at all focal lengths and maybe not even the 70-200 f/4 IS or 70-300L.

But it is very good, the best standard zoom ever. It truly rivals my 24 1.4 II at 24mm.

Dear DxO / Canon,Sorry for not instantly purchasing such a diamond lens, but I am just in the middle of mastering the full capabilities of my MK 1 I have purchased 1 and 1/2 years ago. I hope you will not mind, since you will earn a lot of cash from selling that "gorgeous" 6D.

Tested my 24mm F/1.4 II at all apertures against it and the F/2.8 performance and up is better with the 24-70, so I sold the 24mm...

ET

Agreed the 24-70ii is dead good compared to the 24ii but only the prime can render the sort of shallow portraits like no other lens. Enough to keep the 24L? For me, yes. Obviously not everyone's call.

I didn't really like my 24mm wide open, it had too much fall off until F/2.8, so it was a pretty easy comparison.I actually preferred the results from the 24-70 and contrary to most other reviews, my copy is actually better @ 70mm...

I have my second copy of the Sigma 35mm F/1.4 and they are about equal in sharpness to my eye @ F/2.8.

It's the light fall off and the 'magic' of that aperture combined with that FL that captivates me. Granted I don't use it much but when i do, particularly for child portraits, it makes a huge impression. With the advent of the 24-70 ii, the 24L has become quite a specialized lens but I'm ok with that.

It's the light fall off and the 'magic' of that aperture combined with that FL that captivates me. Granted I don't use it much but when i do, particularly for child portraits, it makes a huge impression. With the advent of the 24-70 ii, the 24L has become quite a specialized lens but I'm ok with that.

Couldn't agree more! I use it wide open to F2 when shooting my kids and it just makes the subject pop and f2 gives that slightly shallow and very pleasing soft feel. Sometimes is subtle, but it's there and I have used it a lot lately at 2.8 too see if I could live with that instead, but I really can't get the same feel, again, sometimes the difference is sublte, but it's there, and it makes a difference I reallyreally love.